n8n: Delete credential

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on irreversibility, whether credentials in use can be deleted, whether dependent workflows are affected, or what happens on deleting a nonexistent ID. With annotations covering the basics, a low score reflects the total absence of added context for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. The opaque "[UNIFIED]" tag occupies space while conveying nothing actionable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero percent parameter documentation, the description does not supply enough for confident invocation. An agent would still need to guess the meaning of 'site' and the consequences of deleting a credential.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented required parameters — but it says nothing about 'site' (presumably the n8n instance) or 'credential_id' (identifier format, where to obtain it). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, which prevents a 1, but the definition adds no meaning beyond the raw names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Delete a credential" gives a specific verb and resource, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is opaque and adds no information, and the description doesn't differentiate this from sibling delete tools (e.g., n8n_delete_variable, n8n_delete_tag), though the resource name 'credential' does most of the disambiguation work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus n8n_get_credential or n8n_transfer_credential, no prerequisite/permission notes, and no warning that credential deletion may break workflows or integrations that reference it. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.